I'm new to posting on the forum, but have found it very helpful in the past. I'd be very grateful for advice on how to proceed now.

My DD has missed the mark with 110 in the Bucks 11+. The head has rated her 3 for suitability, 2 for effort.

I know that on this face of this it looks awful, but we would like her to be considered for GS. We think that her score was affected by her dyspraxia (low processing speed, we asked for adjustment but it was not granted). The headteacher's rating we put down to her age (August baby) and her disability.

We have an Ed Psych report that shows high VC on WISC score (96th centile) and high average PR score (75th centile). She scored 123 for verbal in the 11+, 110 for maths but 81 for NVR, and can only think that the huge difference between that score and the PR score can be explained by needing extra time. Of course all three measures were affected by her relatively very low processing speed (WISC 25th centile, with one score at the 16th centile). She has a strong reading age and has shown huge improvement in the numeracy attainment assessments over 18 months, after we used alternate methods at home (not pen and paper).

We have been through appeal before three years ago under the old system, when our DD got 112, and succeeded at appeal, again with the evidence of disability. She is now thriving and undoubtedly in the right environment. However, in her case the Head's rec (same head) was 2,1. This is a November born baby, and far more extrovert child. However, her reading age was lower than the younger's both in absolute terms and age adjusted. Her Year 5 results were very slightly higher, but even 6 weeks into this new school year the younger's results (now 5c, 4a, 4a, all 5s expected) have surpassed what the older child had at the end of year 5.

The school was unable to implement any of the Ed Psych's recommendations for support. They made recommendations for private activities for us to consider outside school (the Dore programme, Horseriding for the Disabled), none of which was in line with the Ed Psych's recommendations. The class teacher was not willing to act on the OT's suggestions about seating DD so she faced the board directly (she had just adjusted the seating plan) and did not think allowing her to use a pen of her choice (also recommended) to write before she tidied up her hand writing was a good idea. She did have a more sympathetic teacher the next year. The school has been in special measures, with particular concern about maths progress.

I cannot see that DD's needs both for challenge and appropriate support will be met in our catchment upper.

Please can you advise what you think of this as a case. I'd appreciate advice about what (if anything) to say about the head's recommendation, and the school's response to her disability and its special measures status. Is it reasonable to think that that head's recommendation hasn't taken her youth into account?

I'm also baffled about whether we should apply for review (complex case, will they have the time to consider it, but surely heads with access to an ed psych's advice will understand the issues) or wait and go straight to appeal (don't find the idea of the delay and uncertainty of a place appealing at all, and wonder if a lay panel will have the expertise to assess the case properly).

DD is lovely. She wants us to appeal. No tears, just philosophical, but I fear she has faith in me to deliver as I did for her big sister. Can I pull it off with a 3.2?

Thank you very much. It feels strange putting this down openly, but then again, I've learned so much from this forum and I hope others will learn from whatever responses follow here.

I can't say whether you have a case or not, nor what the likelyhood of a review or an appeal suceeding are.

Bear in mind, though, that a 3 is still a recommendation for GS - but with reservations. It might well depend on what those reservations are (and as I understand it, they are supposed to elaborate on those) so it might be worth asking. That might give you more of an understanding of the rating, and how best to approach review/appeal. I'm told that the headteacher's recomendation is of vital importance, so it's worth discussing this with the school in detail, and quickly, I would think.

How severe is the dyspraxia? Does the educational psychologist say? Does he/she recommend extra time?

Bumblebeez wrote:

I'm also baffled about whether we should apply for review (complex case, will they have the time to consider it, but surely heads with access to an ed psych's advice will understand the issues) or wait and go straight to appeal (don't find the idea of the delay and uncertainty of a place appealing at all .....

I wouldn't want to steer you one way or the other (because it's a gamble whatever you do), but have you considered why we have juries consisting of lay people in this country?

A review panel isn't independent. It includes the very people responsible for the system!

Who is paying for the educational psychologist? I wouldn't for one moment want to challenge his or her integrity, but the perception of independence is another matter.(I know it could be pointed out that parents sometimes pay for an educational psychologist's report for review/appeal purposes, but parents are very unlikely to return to that EP again, so - it could be argued - there is less incentive to please the client.)

Quote:

..... and wonder if a lay panel will have the expertise to assess the case properly).

Even if it were a completely lay panel (which it isn't), it should be possible for the evidence to be set before it, just as with a jury, and for a common sense decision to be taken.

An appeal panel of 3 people will include 1 or 2 people with a background in education. (There must be at least 1 lay member.)

Quote:

My DD has missed the mark with 110 in the Bucks 11+.

I suspect that this score could be better than her sibling's 112 because of the much wider range of scores under the new system.

Quote:

We have an Ed Psych report that shows high VC on WISC score (96th centile) and high average PR score (75th centile) ....... processing speed (WISC 25th centile, with one score at the 16th centile).

The verbal comprehension is excellent. At the other extreme the processing speed speaks volumes!

Quote:

Please can you advise what you think of this as a case. I'd appreciate advice about what (if anything) to say about the head's recommendation, and the school's response to her disability and its special measures status. Is it reasonable to think that that head's recommendation hasn't taken her youth into account?

Have you put any of these points to the headteacher? (I appreciate the need to tread carefully.)If you go to review, I think you ought to explain the background in some detail in your written submission.If you go to appeal, it would probably be easier to talk to the panel about all this.

Thank you so much for your reply. It is such a relief to have somewhere to become well informed about the options and think through our approach.

Quote:

How severe is the dyspraxia? Does the educational psychologist say?

She wrote "mild specific learning difficulty of dyspraxia nature". Extra time was not recommended, as I don't think her processing speed scores were low enough. I'm not sure though what scores what have triggered extra time for the 11+. Her PSI was 91, 27th centile (sorry, I made a mistake writing 25th centile before). Her coding subtest was Scaled Score 7, 16th centile. I don't know what that corresponds to as a standardised score.

Are the PS measures needed to trigger extra time in the 11+ the same as for A levels? Would they take account of the difference between the 96th centile VC and 16th centile coding subtest score?

The ed psych report was done in December 2012. We have a very strong family history of high ability and disability, and the signs were there that DD was also affected long before she was tested, but we were advised to wait until she was well past her 8th birthday. We commissioned it to get more understanding into the nature of her difficulties, and it has proved very helpful. The report could not be used to ask for adjustments for the 11+ though as it was too old by June 2014, so the school conducted another assessment then. I do not think that they measured her processing speed in these tests, but seem to have been looking for signs of dyslexia, which the ed psych had already told us was not her diagnosis. Am I right in thinking that a low processing speed score is needed to apply for extra time?

Our experience with DD1 is that from a similar start her PS scores got worse as she became older, for reasons I don't understand and maybe the ed psychs don't either. I wouldn't be surprised if, like DD1, this one ends up qualifying for extra time for A levels. It seems to me that the rules could take into account the discrepancy between high and low WISC scores. If your VC is 50th centile and your PS is 27th centile, that's quite different to a VC of 96th centile and PS of 27th centile. Might that be the sort of common sense best talked through with an appeal panel?

Quote:

An appeal panel of 3 people will include 1 or 2 people with a background in education. (There must be at least 1 lay member.)

I can't remember the exact composition of our panel last time but it included very experienced heads, and we were so grateful for how wise and considerate they seemed. It was sickeningly stressful, but I don't like the idea of the secrecy, perhaps unaccountability, of the review.

I don't know any of the practicalities of going to appeal without a review. How would we apply? When is the deadline? What are the chances of having a review, failing, and then going to appeal? Won't the schools be full by then? We have two grammars which we'd consider, although DD favours one over the other. Are there any figures about how likely she is to get a place after a successful appeal?

Quote:

Have you put any of these points to the headteacher? (I appreciate the need to tread carefully.)

Yes, have discussed with head, but feel a bit stonewalled. We have the completed headteacher form. Nothing has been filled in for section 5. May I PM what is written in section 6?

Quote:

depending on the range of academic evidence

Quote:

a. Respectable 11+ test scores (i.e. as close as possible to the score required).

110

Quote:

b. Very strong support from the head teacher.

3,2 and lukewarm words

Quote:

c. Encouraging SATs predictions

5B, 5C, 5C

Quote:

d. Optional SATs test results, or ‘working at’ levels

Year 6 Autumn Term first half 5c 4a 4a

Quote:

e. High standardised reasoning test scores from school

NFER VR test Feb 2011 - 122NFER VR test Feb 2012 - 106

Up and down, see reading age ...

Quote:

f. A reading age 2 years above average (but see Note 4 below).

Current reading age is +2 years and 9 months. It goes up and down. In KS2 it has always been at least 1 year 3 months ahead, since Spring of Year 4 at least 2 years ahead, at one stage it was 6 years 5 months ahead.

Quote:

g. Recent school report

Year 5 end was 4a 4b 4b

h.

Quote:

An educational psychologist’s report

Yes - obviously more to it than the scores I have quoted from the WISC already, but those are the ones that show the potential. Do you think that the PRI on the 75th centile measures the same things as the NVR in the 11+? It obviously isn't as strong as her VC.

Quote:

i. Good routine academic work, in the child’s own handwriting

Her Year 6 teachers seem pleased with her creative writing, but would this be sent for a review?

Quote:

j. SATs tests, taken in year 6, and clearly marked “level 5” standard.

I don't think they've done anything like this yet.

Quote:

k. High achievement in intellectual activities

She didn't take to trumpet so we gave it a break. School nevertheless has her as gifted and talented for music.

How helpful do you think it would be to quote her WIAT and WRAT scores? In particular, this point: In Dec 2012 the ed psych assessed her numeracy on WIAT and gave her a score of 101, 55th centile. That was a real shock, and seems to indicate how we, and the school, had failed to meet her needs. As I mentioned, after the report was given to them school did not put any particular differentiation in place for her, so we started the IXL programme at home and did a little every day for over a year. She put lots of basic numeracy skills in place through this (I would really strongly recommend this to anyone in a similar situation, much more interesting and responsive than Kumon and far cheaper and more effective than a weekly session with a tutor). By June 2014 when school did the WRAT she scored 120. I'm fairly sure this shows that with the right intervention she can really improve. What do you think?

And please do let me know what you think about whether the school's 3,2 may be influenced by her age, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Putting all this complexity down will take a good few pages. I'm mindful that things need to be kept brief, but I feel I need to anticipate every thought the review panel may have.

As for 12+: she may mature, but the disability is lifelong. Should I point that out too?

This whole process feels like one of the most challenging things I've had to do: it draws on every ounce of my intellectual, organisational and emotional energy.

Heartfelt thanks again for being so generous with your help and expertise.

She wrote "mild specific learning difficulty of dyspraxia nature". Extra time was not recommended, as I don't think her processing speed scores were low enough.

If the report had been more recent, I think the processing speed could have been viewed as significant, although it wouldn't have been the only factor to be taken into account.As far as dyspraxia is concerned, the word "mild" wouldn't have helped.

Quote:

Are the PS measures needed to trigger extra time in the 11+ the same as for A levels?

Sorry, I'm not up to speed with current A-level requirements.

Quote:

Am I right in thinking that a low processing speed score is needed to apply for extra time?

The last guidance I saw stated:

Quote:

"Clear evidence from professionals in addition to school based staff, to show impact of child’s difficulties in similar timed tests. Reading ability and speed should be provided to enable Special Access Panel to evaluate. Occupational therapy report where a child has slow processing speed.Appropriate for: Children with significant physical, motor or visual difficulties.Children who are severely dyspraxic or dyslexic."

I suspect they're quite strict about allowing extra time.

The extreme discrepancy between PS and VCI could still be used as evidence of extenuating circumstances at a review or appeal (although the date of the report might lessen the impact).

Quote:

Our experience with DD1 is that from a similar start her PS scores got worse as she became older, for reasons I don't understand and maybe the ed psychs don't either. I wouldn't be surprised if, like DD1, this one ends up qualifying for extra time for A levels. It seems to me that the rules could take into account the discrepancy between high and low WISC scores. If your VC is 50th centile and your PS is 27th centile, that's quite different to a VC of 96th centile and PS of 27th centile.

I agree entirely.

Quote:

Might that be the sort of common sense best talked through with an appeal panel?

It is one advantage of an appeal that there's the opportunity for a discussion.

Quote:

I don't know any of the practicalities of going to appeal without a review.

Do you think that the PRI on the 75th centile measures the same things as the NVR in the 11+?

I think they're similar.

Quote:

Her Year 6 teachers seem pleased with her creative writing, but would this be sent for a review?

SATs tests, taken in year 6, and clearly marked “level 5” standard.I don't think they've done anything like this yet.

This applies only to an appeal.

Quote:

How helpful do you think it would be to quote her WIAT and WRAT scores? In particular, this point: In Dec 2012 the ed psych assessed her numeracy on WIAT and gave her a score of 101, 55th centile. That was a real shock, and seems to indicate how we, and the school, had failed to meet her needs. As I mentioned, after the report was given to them school did not put any particular differentiation in place for her, so we started the IXL programme at home and did a little every day for over a year. She put lots of basic numeracy skills in place through this (I would really strongly recommend this to anyone in a similar situation, much more interesting and responsive than Kumon and far cheaper and more effective than a weekly session with a tutor). By June 2014 when school did the WRAT she scored 120. I'm fairly sure this shows that with the right intervention she can really improve. What do you think?

It might help (see below about the importance of a positive tone.) . Full credit for the improvement. In terms of the actual level of achievement, psychologically it would have been useful to see something higher than 121.The 122 CAT is encouraging - but counter-balanced by the 106. It might have helped if they'd been the other way round (106 followed by 122)!It would have made your task easier if some of the evidence had been less borderline (e.g. the 5c predictions).

Quote:

And please do let me know what you think about whether the school's 3,2 may be influenced by her age, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I'd be quite surprised if that were a factor.

However, children who are young for their year group do sometimes mature and make accelerated progress in the next 6 months. If that were to be so here, you could have a stronger case in 6 months' time.

Quote:

As for 12+: she may mature, but the disability is lifelong. Should I point that out too?

Looking to the future I'd advise a more positive tone along the lines of "with the right intervention she can really improve"!I also have a feeling that EPs think steps can be taken to improve processing speed.

Quote:

This whole process feels like one of the most challenging things I've had to do: it draws on every ounce of my intellectual, organisational and emotional energy. Heartfelt thanks again for being so generous with your help and expertise.

Why an OT and not an ed psych? This is very odd. Can you tell me where this advice is from, please?

Quote:

The extreme discrepancy between PS and VCI could still be used as evidence of extenuating circumstances at a review or appeal (although the date of the report might lessen the impact).

We're considering another ed psych report, depending on what strategy we go for regarding review or appeal.

Quote:

going to appeal without a review.

The stats look terrible for appeal, unless I'm misunderstanding them. Did only 2/20 succeed, ie 10%? Compared to 26% of reviews at 110?

Quote:

They might be full

I don't really understand what the table means. Both the schools we'd consider accepted ALL, one is really close by with a sibling in it. (DD favours the other one, she wants to get out of her sister's shadow.) Are they full by the time of the March allocations, and thereafter you are fighting to have a better case than the school?

Quote:

If your appeal is successful, you get a place even if the school is full!

Forgive my dull brain. So does straight to appeal mean 1. win the qualification argument, and then 2. win the argument for a place. Can you win 1 and then not 2?And another question: if you lose the review, you have to win the argument that the review was flawed before even getting to 1 and 2?

Quote:

The 122 CAT is encouraging - but counter-balanced by the 106. It might have helped if they'd been the other way round (106 followed by 122)!

Sigh, true. Who knows what was going on in her eight year old head that day?

Quote:

It would have made your task easier if some of the evidence had been less borderline (e.g. the 5c predictions).

Of course, but isn't it only fair to see this as a good achievement for an August child?

Quote:

I also have a feeling that EPs think steps can be taken to improve processing speed.

I'm all for being positive and quite prepared to completely change my mind on this! So please let me know what prompts you to say this? It has always been explained to me that the processing speed is hardwired for life, and that while strategies can be found to help cope with the problem, there is no "cure" for the processing speed problem itself. It is on the basis of low PSI that DD1 is considered a disabled person in terms of the Disability Discrimination Act.

Keep thinking that I know you have been at this for years, and wondering about all the anonymous people out there who are as grateful as I am to be able to work through these things. Hah! I tried a smilie!

Why an OT and not an ed psych? This is very odd. Can you tell me where this advice is from, please?

Am sending you a copy.

Quote:

The stats look terrible for appeal, unless I'm misunderstanding them. Did only 2/20 succeed, ie 10%? Compared to 26% of reviews at 110?

We think this is likely to have been an atypical group. We comment in the Q&As, E29f(2):

Quote:

• This seems a very low figure. Our suspicion is that these may have been mostly children moving into the area (as opposed to local families who had been misinformed that they had to go through a review!). These parents, on the other hand, were less likely to have been pressured into a review, especially if they were appealing when it had been belatedly acknowledged that there is a legal right to go straight to an independent panel. Coming from other LAs, their academic evidence may have been insufficient (e.g. no KS2 sub-levels, no alternative reasoning tests, no realistic headteacher support).

Quote:

I don't really understand what the table means. Both the schools we'd consider accepted ALL, one is really close by with a sibling in it. (DD favours the other one, she wants to get out of her sister's shadow.) Are they full by the time of the March allocations, and thereafter you are fighting to have a better case than the school?

I don't have the details, but we were told last year of a surprising number of GS vacancies at the time of the summer term appeals.

However, if the school is full, then yes, your reasons for wanting a place would have to outweigh the prejudice to the school.

Quote:

So does straight to appeal mean 1. win the qualification argument, and then 2. win the argument for a place.

Yes, if there are no vacancies.

Quote:

Can you win 1 and then not 2?

Yes - you would lose the appeal overall, but by winning 1 you could go on the waiting list.

Quote:

And another question: if you lose the review, you have to win the argument that the review was flawed before even getting to 1 and 2?

Yes - although strictly speaking it ought to be for the school to prove that the review was fair, consistent and objective, rather than for you to disprove it.

Quote:

isn't it only fair to see this as a good achievement for an August child?

Sadly, I don't think any panel will take age into account where SATs are concerned.

Quote:

It has always been explained to me that the processing speed is hardwired for life, and that while strategies can be found to help cope with the problem, there is no "cure" for the processing speed problem itself.

By "improve on" I was thinking of strategies rather than a cure. It's been a long day!

The advice is that no evidence should be more than one year old, with the exception of ed psych reports, so long is it is under two years old and if school provides some current supplementary evidence.

We did in fact go ahead with review, after having DD assessed again, both by a Specialist Teacher and, on her advice, by a Behavioral Optometrist. There is a very clear cluster of low processing scores, and the high verbal ability was confirmed. The diagnosis is co-occurring dyslexia and dyspraxia. They recommended extra time. School has started trialling extra time in tests.

We also found out why she did so badly in the NVR: she said you needed to mark two answers per line, and this was not something she'd seen before, there was nothing like that in the familiarisation pack. So she marked one answer per line, got halfway through, ran out of answer sheet, rubbed the whole lot out and started again. It is of course the sort of thing you could expect her to do with her disabilities. She loves that type of puzzle and whizzes through them.

I'm trusting in the review's fairness, until February, but already starting to think about grounds for appeal. For one thing, we requested a remark in writing 22 days ago, and were told we would be contacted within ten working days. Haven't heard anything as of writing. Did anyone else get a remark?

Quote:

Bear in mind, though, that a 3 is still a recommendation for GS - but with reservations.

Rags, we asked the head to clarify. In the end they wouldn't say anything and didn't write anything about DDs ability. They said the 3 rating was because she wasn't expected to make 2 levels of progress by the end of KS2 from the end of KS1. When I pointed out she is already working at that level there was a bit of an awkward silence. They did write up the reservations, which were that she had needed small group support and had never been in top set. It was admitted that there had never been any SEN intervention, despite her needs being flagged up with the school from the start. It seems to me that the small group support took the place of SEN support. My guess is that there is no support available for the top set, either: I do understand resources are limited, but if able kids are not supported, how can they perform at their potential? It then sounds pretty much like saying that children who need support can not be grammar school material. Why, then, are there special needs departments in the grammar schools and at universities?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum